Gail Trimble: Cleverness, aesthetics and sexism

One of my guilty pleasures is that I love quizzes. From Trivial Pursuit to table quizzes, I seem to have huge spongey brain that holds on to useless info like old bathwater. As a kid, our whole family loved them and would huddle around Blockbusters, The Krypton Factor (now back on TV, all made over and not as endearingly crappy thanks to advances in technology), Countdown, Mastermind and anything else that fired general knowledge questions at us. I still love them, but don’t get as much time to tune in and can’t keep up with some of the newer style-over-substance ones. But one I always make time for is University Challenge and the current series has been riveting for one reason – Gail Trimble. Her team Corpus Christi College, Oxford are set to take on the University of Manchester in tomorrow night’s final on BBC2 at 8pm. It occured to me I might be alone in being wowed by her unflinching intellect, but an article in today’s Observer proves otherwise, dubbing her “the cleverest contestant ever”. As a team member of Corpus Christi College, Oxford she has scored more points than her three (one female, two male) team mates put together – that’s 825 of the team’s total of 1,235 points.

Included in the Observer piece are various quotes from blogs, where Trimble has become a huge discussion topic. What struck me most from the majority of the quotes, is that her looks rather than her intelligence are being focused on. Of the seven quotes included, one is negative, the rest positive. And of the positive notices, three of them describe her as “sexy”, as well as “attractive in a blue-stocking sort of way”, a “stunning looker” with a “gorgeous smile”. She has also picked up the nickname “Tasty Trimble”.

Once again we have an extraordinarily bright and academically excellent woman being reduced to her physicality. Many of the sniping internet comments refer to her as being smug, superior or condescending. I’ve seen her on three UC shows and have hugely impressed by how smart she is. Why are people threatened by others who are cleverer than them? But this case is certainly about ability as much as it is about gender and Trimble herself says in the article:

“I don’t feel I would have been treated the same way were I a man.”

It’s true. Patriarchy dictates that all the intelligence (and the centres of power that come with that intelligence) should reside in the heads of men. Women shouldn’t dare try to match – or gasp, exceed – their intellectual levels. Smart women are dangerous, too clever for their own good and are asking to be challenged, negated and put down. Gail Trimble shouldn’t be have to apologise for being clever. And in this day and age, she shouldn’t have the projected insecurites of some less intelligent men foisted upon her.

On a lighter note, I couldn’t help but think of this Young Ones scene.

Related

99 Responses

I’d been rooting for St John’s all season because of the three Irish players. I was worried going into the semi final that they wouldn’t be quick enough on the buzzer. I was right.

Having said that, Gail Trimble is FIERCE. Answering ‘ how the fuck does she know that” questions with a flick of her hair and making it awesome.

There was one moment in the semi when Cambridge were staging a comeback that she looked genuinely rattled. So if her opponents can buzz in quickly
the final should be great. Manchester are a good team, I fancy the one who sits beside the captain and scowls his way through the show. Didn’t they score 300+ in their semi?
Bring it on!

I don’t believe that men, certainly not all men are threatened by intellegent women but there are certain characters that feel they have to have the upper hand and are willing to resort to snide tactics.

Men can get away with being clever while lacking any likeable or social personality. Women can’t. If the defining trait if a woman is her intellegence (often stiffelling certain social skills) she’s just viewed as a bitch or prude or know-it-all.

Let’s be honest, the English have never liked intelligence or intellect, associating such things with Johnny Continental types. Which other nation could coin an expression like ‘too clever by half’? Frankly, I was stunned by the breadth of her knowledge.

Yes, men may threatened by intelligent women, but I believe women are to blame for that too.

Most women would prefer a guy who is smarter (or stronger, or more successful, or has more ‘status’, or taller, or older) than themselves. As a result, a man who comes across a women who is more intelligent, will automatically feel his very sexuality and ability to attract women, is being threatened.

Maybe if women changed their attitudes and were more prepared to go out with men ‘below’ themselves, men wouldn’t feel so inadequate when confronted by women of these sorts.

jh, if a man feels that his “very sexuality” is threatened by an intelligent woman, that’s very much his problem, not the woman’s. What exactly are we supposed to do – go out with unattractive idiots so a few insecure men don’t feel bad? Lovely. And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that women always want a man who is “smarter (or stronger, or more successful, or has more ’status’, or taller, or older) than themselves”? Have you just been reading the Big Book of Gender Stereotypes? Because a lot of us just want partners who are our equals. And I’d like to think that a lot of men do too. Certainly all of my happily coupled-up (straight) friends are pretty equal matches – as are my husband and I. He’s a lot taller and hairier than me, though, I’ll give you that.

You’re missing the fact that all the negative comments are from other women. I watched UC with my mom and sister, both of them attacked her for being smug and ‘too smart’, me and my dad didn’t even notice, we just thought she was good. This is female competition, your greatest enemies are yourselves.

Having seen her on UC back in January, and blogged about her in an indirect manner, I was totally shocked to find out later that not only was there a great discussion about her online already but that most of it was negative. I cannot for the life of me why anyone would find her mannerisms patronising and condescending. For me she just came across as being a lovely person, who seemed a bit shy at times. I can only speak for myself, and I’m probably not a “typical man” in fairness, but I greatly admire intelligent women. I admire intelligent people in general.

I read that Guardian article last night and like you, was aghast at the choice of quotes (ignoring the fact that I was peeved that I wasn’t quoted🙂 The “sexy” comments are out there though, and as unfortunate the choice of wording and direction, they can act least be catagorised as “positive”, as the comments on her looks swing both ways at times. Some have described her as being a “horse-toothed snob” as well as worse. The worst comments come from haters who boast that they could “sort her out” with some form sexual assault.

I am disgusted by the level of abuse shes attracted. Not because people hate her (you can’t be loved by everyone), but I find the grounds of this hatred totally unjust, unfair and unfounded.

Oh Sebastian, thanks so much for linking to your blog. It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in years. The nobility of suicide post was amusing enough, but I was actually crying with laughter when I got to the post about lessons learned (especially the bit about the powerful effects of spending lots of time online). And don’t worry, everyone goes through a Brideshead phase, it’ll wear off. Although I bet you’ll be on to Ayn Rand next…

The worst comments come from haters who boast that they could “sort her out” with some form sexual assault.

Gamma Goblin, I’m sadly not surprised to read that. “Hilarious” rape threats are the sort of thing that men in the public eye don’t usually have to deal with.

@Q, the St. John’s captain – who looks like he could be in Fleet Foxes or some other beardy folk band – was a smart chap but he really met his match with Trimble.

@Lottie, agreed. Of course all men aren’t like that. Jesus, imagine? *shudder*
“If the defining trait if a woman is her intellegence (often stiffelling certain social skills) she’s just viewed as a bitch or prude or know-it-all.”

It’s like someone taking a scalding, ‘get back in your box’ tone with you for daring to voice an intelligent opinion.

@Weazand, why do you think that is? Also, I didn’t know that was an English expression. Interesting…

@Sebastian – “You’re missing the fact that all the negative comments are from other women”

Eh, no they’re not actually. See my post.

“This is female competition, your greatest enemies are yourselves.”

That’s as untrue as it is unhelpful.

@Gamma Goblin
“I admire intelligent people in general.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head there. This issue shouldn’t be specifically about gender but in this particular case it seems to be. The criticism is unjust as you say, but even the positive comments shouldn’t focus on her appearance.
University Challenge is show about intellect – it’s not (thankfully) that other tacky relic, Miss World, so her looks are irrelevant. As she said herself, we wouldn’t even be discussing this if she was male.

And why has no one mentioned the Young Ones clip? Another reason to love Stephen Fry.

Well,,,,,
I think she`s sweet.
What a pleasure to see someone, who is genuinely interested in acquiring knowledge ( for it`s own sake).showing her emotions openly.
Having heard her on the radio this am.
It brought back of my own memories, of having my mother testing my knowledge of various subjects, as a pre-bedtime treat.
I always wanted to carry on and the retained knowledge has carried me in good stead since.
Having a broad depth of knowlege will always benefitial in confidence giving.
But, as we have seen, it can leave the less illuminated feeling some kind of negative attitude, instead of us seeking to emulate Gale`s parents ,in their upbringing of this remarkable, young lady.
I expect Ok/Hello ect are even now seeking her marriage plans ect.
No Gail, don`t be tempted !!!

Gail Trimble would be the 3rd Female Captain to win University Challenge. The previous two were Sarah Fitzpatrick in 1998 and Freya McClements in 2004 (think it was 2004) both for Magdalene College. I remember when Fitzpatrick won it, there was a particularly drooling interview in The Telegraph which focused far more on her looks as opposed to her ability at answering random quiz questions. My bet would be a similarly annoying column, probably in the Telehraph, if Trimble wins. And she will, she’s absolutely incredible. I’ve watched UC for about 10 years and she’s the best contestant i’ve ever seen.

Not true. All the studies show that women do not want a man who is her equal, but a man who is ‘better’ than her. Attraction – which is unconscious, and not a choice – is generated in the female brain when she meets a man who is higher value, whether it be economically, socially or biologically. Attraction occurs, essentially, when a man demonstrates that he is ‘out of her league’.

Evolutionary biologists have uncovered three main attraction switches in the female brain – leader of men, protector of loved ones, and preselection. These correspond to health, wealth, status, preselection, confidence, challenging and humour. Women’s attraction switches evolved to find a man who could pass on good genes to her children and assist with taking care of those children. For that reason a tribal leader is more desirable than a lower tier man, as he has access to resources and contacts that allow him to take care of her, a very important consideration given that we evolved during a time when the welfare state didnt give free money to single mothers, and also because his position is subtle proof of his genetic strengths. A woman may actually COMPROMISE her chances of survival and replication by mating with a low status male.

Heath is desirable for obvious reasons, and confidence and humour are ‘congruence’ traits – traits that hint at a mans high value.

But even more powerful is the preselection attraction switch. Common in all animals, if a woman sees a man is desired by other attractive women, she will automatically be attracted to him as a result. A number of studies showed a guy of average attractiveness to young females and they were to assess his mate value – in one picture he was alone, in another with an attractive woman. They rated the guy an order of magnitute greater in mate value when he was with the other woman than by himself. THIS WAS THE SAME GUY!!!! Preselection is mind-bogglingly powerful.

As evolutionary biologist Matt Ridley pointed out in ‘The Red Queen, Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature’ – preselection exists in the female brain for 2 very important reasons. 1. If other women are attracted to a man there must be a reason, ie he has the qualities I desire. 2. If other women are attracted to him, then regardless of whether he may or may not have the qualities I desire, it is still important I seek out these preselected men because OTHER WOMEN LIKE HIM, therefore by mating with him I produce sons that other women will like, increasing my genes chances of replication even further. This is the ‘sexy sons’ hypothesis, and one of the main reasons why bad boys get so many girls. Women who did not want preselected men were quickly selected out by evolution. There is a very high fitness cost for women ignoring preselected men.

Men are attracted to very different things than women. Evolution selected for men who were attracted to female correlates of FERTILITY, chiefly youth and beauty. Youth is strongly correlated with fertility, a younger woman is more fertile than a menopausal one, while beauty is also correlated with fertility, eg women with an hourglass figure have more and healthier offspring than others. An interesting study – beautiful woman in burger king uniform vs same in suit beside mercedes. Men rated both equal. Handsome man in burger king uniform vs same man in suit beside mercedes – women rated the latter WAY more attractive than the former.

Matt Ridley pointed to one survey of the leaders of top feminist organisations in the US – can you believe, ALL of them wanted a man who was higher status than them. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of a man earning less than them, despite their indoctrination. One finds the same thing in surveys of university women, who are fed leftist blank slate tripe their whole time, yet still demonstrate attraction toward higher status men. That’s because it’s biological, and like most stereotypes, pretty much true.

Yes. Being extremely low status in the tribe, having few resourses and few high status friends.

“Hey Sebastian! I’m genuinely curious; what type of relationships and contact do you have with women?”

Before I learned about female psychology and learned the rules of attraction? My success was happenstance and dependent on social circles or inherent value differences, like with foreign girls.

I was nice to girls, and they hate that. I have learned a lot since then. The Game has taught me so much, more than school, more than parents, more than anything. That’s the great thing about being a guy – you can LEARN to push all of those attraction buttons. Women have far less clay to work with, as their mate value is overwhelmingly tied to youth and beauty.

Sebastian, you are truly the gift that keeps on giving. You’d better not turn out to be someone who’s created a pitch-perfect pastiche of a deluded pretentious kid who talks to grown women like they’re idiots just because no one fancied him when he was 14, and thinks the reason girls don’t like him is because he’s just so much more intelligent than them. It will just spoil the magic. Because you (and your awesome blog) are total comedy gold at the moment. I really want to believe you’re real. Although you’re kind of beyond parody, really…

You know the real secret of that whole Game bollocks? If you have a brass neck and keep hitting on anything that moves, eventually you’ll find someone just as desperate for a shag as you are. Law of averages, really. But I’ve got to say, that whole subculture that’s developed around The Game is pretty hilarious too. It’s like the biggest collection of sad sack misogynist losers with no social skills and huge senses of entitlement you could imagine. And to make it even funnier, they all have ridiculous “sexy” names like Diamond Head or Fox Hunter (or whatever). They all seem to think they have a right to shag anyone they want, and if any woman doesn’t agree, she’s a stupid vapid bitch. What charmers!

Oh, and you know what the real secret to doing well with girls is? Being nice to them because you respect them and see them as fellow human beings, not because you think you’ll get something out of it. That’s how all my male friends treat women. And guess what? Women like them. And as a result, they’re not so bitter and resentful they think they have to use tricks to get women to talk to them.

Some nice arguments there Penny, truly, good old emotional bile, the soul of the female. And you, a pastiche parody of Stuff White People Like cliches – “vintage dresses, indie designers, French cheese, libraries, knitting, comics, second-hand bookshops, listening to lots of different bands, and cycling in sunny weather”… jesus, stick in some fair trade coffee, Sigur Ros CD, start collecting for Oxfam and you’re golden. Feminist indie chicks are usually the easiest to run game on, they spend their whole lives with so many lapdog poncho wearing nice guy beta nerds that they cannot resist a dominant male asshole, they just feel the emotion and all the feminist rubbish they’ve injested disappears in a puff of Darwinistic lust.

How do you know so much about early hominids? Because you could have your pick of anthropology professorships if any of this pseudoscientific gobbledygook had any academic validity.

Not only do we not know about social expression of genetic propensity except that which is filtered through social relations in the present and recent past, we have so little concrete knowledge about people’s intentions and actual behaviours (as opposed to the cultural norms, which we know something about in literate societies, less so in pre-writing societies) in the not-so-distant past that there is very little we can say about early hominids at all.

Just because the same gene might have existed, it does not mean that the social expression — even if we knew enough to piece it together — could be correlated with a modern western society which, if you haven’t noticed, is quite unlike a prehistoric hunter-gatherer one. We do not know enough about genetics, nor about social life in the lower palaeolithic period to make the kinds of ridiculous statements you make.

Social organisation in prehistory — even when we’re talking, say, Neolithic Ireland which only ended in 2500 BC — is still something that is vague, ambiguous, and a subject for a lot of theorising and arguing between scholars who do a lot more thinking and researching and publishing than just to post misogynist claptrap on feminist blogs because it makes them feel big and strong.

Just because you think you can’t get laid by being a nice guy (maybe you were not nice — maybe you were needy and annoying?), you can’t just assume it must be evolutionary biology that explains it. Just because acting like a jerk seems to get you laid doesn’t mean you’ve found a missing evolutionary link. It just means that you’re being a manipulative jerk, playing games with other people’s feelings, and then justifying it by blaming the poor monkeys. What did a monkey ever do to you to deserve such abuse?

There are indeed some interesting biological/genetic/instinctive behaviours when it comes to human pairings, but no geneticist or paleoanthropologist would even study something like, “Did pre-human female primates like guys with muscle cars and badass attitudes?”

I would also like to know about the scientific studies you cite: what were the sample sizes? Who funded the research? Where was the research carried out? What was controlled for? What was the actual research question, and what sort of analyses were carried out?

I’m not saying that there are no instincts that are factored into the choice of a partner, but if you really believe this stuff is scientifically plausible, show us.

Until then, I will make sure to bring some Whoppers next time I go to the zoo.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that people who work in Burger King lack high-status friends. After all, they are fast-food *royalty*.

And what the hell is wrong with foreign girls?

Wait? Gah?

I’m so confused. Someone pass me some clay. I have very little to work with, you see.

Actually it’s working. All you have to do now is touch my arm, give me a backhanded compliment and I’m yours.

Hee! This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Oh my God, I just thought of something that almost made me laugh aloud at my desk (I had to pretend it was a cough in case my boss realised I am not actually working at the moment): maybe Sebastian thinks he really is flirting with all of us in these comments? He is getting a reaction out of us, after all!

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that people who work in Burger King lack high-status friends. After all, they are fast-food *royalty*.

Okay, I’m going to have to stop reading this or my boss is going to get suspicious. I keep making weird snorty suppressed-laughter noises.

Prehistory is irrelevant. Our base drives were selected for during the pleistocene. Evolution has not had time to adapt to modern social organisation. There is increasing evidence that civilisation – farming in particular – changed the base genes of European and Asian population groups, but I doubt that’s a route your PC little self would like to tread down, it will lead to divers places.

“And what the hell is wrong with foreign girls?”

Nothing. It’s just they tend to be easier being ‘fish out of water’ and also the fact that being nice to them is not as destructive due to the language barrier, which makes the cocky banter native english speakers demand less relevant.

Seriously, Sebastian does it work? Talk me through a typical day in which you apply the teachings of the Game and take the magic misogynist train to scoresville (oh… hold on a minute… you don’t just show them your arse and grunt do you? I’m not paying good money to be taught how to do that!).

Also, I was wondering about this: if our ‘base drives’, as you describe them, are so old, then why aren’t all men alphas? Why don’t all women look like Hooters girls?

Just to correct your ‘facts’, since you don’t seem particularly prone to logical analyses:

* The pleistocene era covers all the way up to the end of the last ice age, and thus, long after the emergence of the modern homo sapiens sapiens.

* Prehistory covers the entire period from the emergence of writing (although when ‘history’ begins is constantly in dispute between scholars in different sub-fields) all the way back to the first humans.

@Jane – your suggestion was good. I’m not knocking it. And time permitting I will visit said Breastaraunt (thanks for introducing me to that word by the way). But I just did the arse thing that Sebastian suggested and I totally got to make out with a monkey. It was brilliant. “Dear Diary, today the most magical thing happened…”

Sexual selection is one of two drivers of evolution, the other is natural selection. Natural selection keeps the emergence of peacocks tails in humans in equilibrium. Pathogen rich environments like Spain or Italy tend to produce attractive females. Also skewed sex ratios in male favour (more men than women), as occured in France after WWI or Russia after WWII tend to produce more attractive females in only a couple generations, as men select for attractive women when given the choice. After WWII the female male ratio in Russia was 2:1. This is one reason why Russian women are unusually attractive vis-a-vis Western women.

Breastaurant. Breastaurant. Breastaurant. It’s so much fun to say. I also learned that to some extent, the Breastaurant industry could be recession-proof. People would rather have their muscle cars and offspring repossessed than give up 25-cent wings and boobies and sports on the big screen.

Hey ladies, I know what’ll distract him (sorry Penny C, I can see you’ve got a real catch there. Although I see he is totally unfamiliar with the concept of someone with a sense of humour about themselves, so maybe you’re not well matched after all. Also, aren’t you married? Although I can’t blame you succumbing to such an alpha male, of course). Hey, who’s this?

I have taken notice of Gail Trimble’s looks and mannerisms…not because of sexism but because she’s so much like my wife in looks and intellect. Gail’s a throwback to 30 or 40 years ago where that combination of English Rose looks, gosh jolly hockey sticks manner, can-do attitude and a razor sharp intellect were applauded, not mocked. I see Gail and think that somewhere, somehow, Tom Baker’s Dr. Who is missing a companion. A far cry from the brash, peroxide and pissed media icons that have held sway for so long.

I’m not sure whether you meant this as a rhetorical question, but it’s one I can’t help but try to answer. Why does this wonderful woman’s intelligence bring out the worst in people? Such spite, such bile!

Is that be because we’re all really acting in our selfish interests, and an openly intelligent person is a threat? Too cunning by half, all the better to stab us in the back one day?

Could it be that emotions of honest trust and friendship are only inspired in us by humble people, who we can dominate from time to time?

Is it, indeed, that she stands out from a “submissive” gender stereotype that was so prevalent in our society just a few generations ago? (Are these attitudes wired into the male brain in particular, something that egalitarian societies will always have to repress?…)

Or maybe’s it’s simple jealousy – a seething frustration borne out of knowing that Gail Trimble has displayed to us a skill that most of us daren’t even aspire to?

I’d bet that all of these thoughts are represented – to differing degrees, depending on who it is exactly that’s mouthing off.

Someone should collect up the world’s responses to this story. There’s a PhD or a book in it, I’m sure.

Hey Neil Strauss, long time fan, I loved The Game. Is there any chance I could get an autograph? Cheers!

I was wondering something though. I read in chapter 12 of your book “What to do if the bitch keeps saying no”, that the easiest way to a girls heart is with rohypnol. That shits kinda hard to pick up though. I tried my nearest Tesco but they were sold out. Is there any alternative I could try? Maybe I could make it myself? It can’t be too much hardwork though as my mom will wonder what I’m doing in my room.

Oh one last thing, I just wanted to say that last week, at my local haunt, I totally scored with three girls and only two of them had vomit in their mouths. Hows that for phase shifting!

I agree entirely with the description of Trimble by Nick Hughes above. The Dr. Who part is a bit spooky actually, as earlier, on my blog, I myself linked Trimble’s air and grace, to that of Delia Derbyshire, for my own reasoning at least. For those not in the know, Delia Derbyshire is the woman that arranged the original Dr. Who theme tune back in 1963. The tune was originally written by Ron Grainer on piano but Derbyshire really made it her own, by painstakingly piecing it together note by note from individual electronic recordings at certain frequencies. the result was the same melody but inside in a completely new different musical style. Even Grainer thought she should have been given the title of co-composer for it, but law and tradition at the time didn’t allow it.

While she’s not exactly a household name, this great female pioneer of electronic music, is at least these days getting some recognition for the work she did over the years.

Naturally, I’m late to this, but I have to say well fucking done on shooting this shit stain Sebastian down.
It was the best laugh to cure my jet lag!
Evolutionary science/psychology is nothing more than base patriarchal thuggery dressed up as fact for the knuckle-draggers who want to instill reductive gender essentialism.
Fuck that shit.

It is not that she is a ‘woman’ that is the problem. It is the fact that she is an annoying supercilious self-obsessed hair-flicking non-team-playing twat.
If she were studying a ‘hard’ subject at Oxford she wouldn’t have time to learn all the trivia.
Winning University Challenge does not mean the people are clever. It does not mean only Trimble knew the answers to trivia. UC represents the typical privileged upper-middle-class scam. The Oxbridge myth is perpetuated by UC, where every other university has just ONE team, whilst every Oxbridge college gets to submit a team. This scam pandering to the privately educated minority is demonstrated every week by Paxo’s slobbering bias for Oxbridge teams.
Trimble and Paxo are a perfect match; both annoying egocentric bores.

First off, I have to say that Gail Trimble is fantastic and admirable and I absolutely love her. It’s funny how many people take it so very personally that a mere woman is smarter and more poised than they will ever be. Of course people like that rush to take her down a peg or two. She’s smart, she’s a woman, and by god, she’s getting uppity! I’m surprised they haven’t come for the poor girl with torches and pitchforks.

Secondly, Sebastian has GOT to be a satirical troll. You just can’t pack that much bone-stupid into so little semantic content without your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek.

Hey Sebastian, on the off chance that you’re not kidding, are you a representative for the Nice Guys® Science For Choads Institute? Because your Nice Guy® Choadery skills are outstanding, man!

See here, here, here, and here. But if you don’t want to believe a silly, silly feminist about all of the dimwitted and misogynist underpinnings of evo psych, why don’t you take another man’s word for it. Then, I suggest that you sit down and drink a nice, tall, cool glass of STFU.

The British reaction to Gail Trimble is to be expected and nothing new. It is a long-standing British tradition to sneer at the professional and admire the jug eared idiot amateur. With massive pomp and circumstance we bow and scrape to Elizabeth the second, someone who has never earned or worked for a single qualification in her life and then at the same time we sneer and resent those countries “generally” ruled by highly educated Presidents as being somehow degenerate.

[…] and societal values. Does England value beauty more than brains? Is Gail Trimble being vilified because of her gender? Is Gail even that smart, or have expectations of the average Briton been lowered? Why does this […]

Been intelligent is a basic attribute for humans and most other living creatures such as ants for instance. You don’t need to have an education in order to be intelligent, we are born with this quailty, but not knowlage. Intelligence is the ability to learn and knowledge is what you have learned as a result. I find it amusing how people think that a certain type of woman is intelligent, thus the rest are some how unintelligent? You can be intelligent and have all the knowlage in the world, but lack any common sense. And If you have all three, then you are a lucky bas**rd.

As the man who set up the group “Gail Trimble Appreciation Club” I would like to make a couple of observations. I set it up in an idle hour last week, in reaction to some of the disgraceful, bullying, bigoted and obscene things being written about her on the internet. I genuinely expected little response.

What happened next has surpised and delighted me in a most surprising way. For what it’s worth, the fact that it has over 1,400 members, as against 480-odd for the largest hate-group, suggests to me that there is a considerable body of people who are NOT sexist boors, who appreciate a show of brains, whose ideals of feminine beauty do not encompass silicone boobs and plastic brains.

Secondly-and I have no figures to back this up, it’s just an impression- of those expressing dislike and hatred-a majority appear to be women.

“Secondly-and I have no figures to back this up, it’s just an impression- of those expressing dislike and hatred-a majority appear to be women.”

Ian, none of the women posting or commenting here have said anything negative about her. The bulk of the negative commentary I’ve seen has been male. You say you have no figures to base your point about women being the majority of haters – so what are you basing it on? Could you elaborate?

I don’t doubt there has been criticism from women, but from what I can see it’s far from the “majority”.

The springboard for the comments in the main post above seem to be the blog comments quoted by the Observer. However it’s important to note that the Observer may have its own agenda here, and not all the quotes are complete. For example, the last quote (“Yes, she is attractive in a blue-stocking sort of way. The new Joan Bakewell?”) comes from TV Scoop, and was the last part of a comment which began “Why all the hate – she’s good at general knowledge and isn’t afraid of showing it. Should she get all the questions wrong just to make the rest of you feel better?” and which was therefore primarily dealing with Trimble’s intelligence and not her appearance.

In other words, none of the blog comments quoted by the Observer is exclusively talking about Trimble’s appearance. Here are the others as quoted by the Observer:

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a lovely, fresh, self-effacing, lightning-fast intellect in action. Corpus Christi Trimble was a treat to watch in action.”

“When you’re dealing with a Trimble, you just know that they’ve sneered at thick people … and by ‘thick’, I mean people who don’t know as much as her, which is virtually everyone, her team included.”

“Just watched UC tonight and saw Exeter slaughtered by Corpus Christi – I mean Trimble, as the rest of team were surplus to requirement. I was fascinated by her, and I must admit I found her sexy.”

“I thought Trimble was fantastic. Fabulous brain. She had an incredible breadth of knowledge. She virtually won the competition on her own. What a stunning looker, too. Very sexy. Gorgeous smile. ”

“I agree that she comes across as patronising and with a healthy sense of her own intellectual superiority. These characteristics are common in establishments such as hers. However, she clearly is very knowledgeable. And she is also a mite sexy.”

@John The Observer piece tapped into something that many have been talking about. This post mentions quotes that appear there, but if you do some googling you’ll find there’s no shortage of non-Guardian criticism. I just didn’t link to them all.

Regardless of whether those blog comments, truncated or otherwise talk about her appearance “exclusively”, why should they mention it at all? If Trimble were male, there would be no discussion.

“In all of these, with the exception of the last, Trimble’s intelligence is the talking point, and her appearance is secondary or not mentioned.”

I have to disagree.
#comment 1 Look at the language used – “fresh”, “lovely”, would a man of similar intellect ever be described in such terms?
#comment 2 doesn’t mention appearances, but is highly critical of her
# comment 4 – what’s the point of throwing in the superfluous comments on her appearance? That’s the issue here – this wouldn’t be mentioned if she were male.
# comment5 – her appearance is still mentioned but hey, she’s also patronising and dares to be intellectually superior.

Just out of curiosity – if it’s time-consuming to do the maths on the Facebook page, how long did it take to source the full quotes above, as they’re not linked to on Observer story (except TV Scoop).

Well done. You were the only person in close to 70 comments to notice what I did with the Fleet Foxes reference. I threw that in to see if anyone would notice me referring to a male contestant’s looks. And no one did, which is very interesting.

I think you’re probably right that a male contestant would not attract the same level of comments on his appearance. But I do think, if publicised as widely as Trimble, he would attract an equal level of opprobrium on class/snobbery grounds (probably using phrases like “fop” and “chinless wonder”). But now we are into the realms of hypothesis.

(I clicked the link in your story for the Observer quotes. The only one I sought out more of was the TV Scoop one.)

In light of your recent comment, I now feel under attack for my comments on my own blog about Gail Trimble. I myself have called Trimble “lovely” but I see nothing offensive about it. She appears to be a lovely woman. I like her, it doesn’t mean I want to climb up on her. I have often said that certain men are lovely too. Off the top of my head, just do a search for David Norris on my blog.

I can’t understand your strict views on withholding comments on anything bar how well she answers questions. Gail Trimble is human, but by strictly chastising every single comment about her appearance turns her into nothing more than a organic automaton. I think thats a bit extreme and a bit unnatural.

I fundamentally disagree with the theory that if Trimble were a man he wouldn’t get a comment about his looks. Is the phrase “A smart, good looking young man” totally alien to you? There are countless examples of actors, sport stars and musicians where women drool over them, even if they have no interest whatsoever in their professional career. You might not like this either but you must agree it’s a fact. Can you hand on heart say that you’ve never had a crush on someone famous?

As you are aware from my own comments already, I didn’t like the the things that were said about Trimble’s appearance either, but thats because they were leering and self gratifying, and I agree with your sentiment, that they over shadowed the preceding mention of her intellectual ability.

Hmmm… I have begun to wonder about your choice of image for this blog post now. I think you Googled Gail Trimble, found one my images, were about to embed it when suddenly you read what I wrote and said “oh no no no, I can’t put this in, not when it’s from such a horrid little man like this Gammy Goblin fellow” lol🙂

Oh and btw, I think a lot of people noticed the “Fleet Foxes” description, but perhaps, like me, they just accepted the facetious tone you wrote it in🙂

“Is the phrase “A smart, good looking young man” totally alien to you?”

Of course not, but we’re not talking in generalities, we’re talking about a specific case, with a specific background. With regard to what you say about actors/sports stars, the key thing here is context. No one is saying that crushes are bad, or compliments on appearance are evil. Gail Trimble was a contestant on a quiz that tests intellect – her looks are irrelevant in the context of the show.

Gamma, there are lots of pics of her on the web. I hadn’t seen your blog until you dropped by to comment.

Generalities!? Have you never heard anyone say it about someone specific before? o.O

Yes absolutely, looks arent important to to show, but Jeremy Paxman wasn’t giving her points for her appearance was he? The comments came from the general public who had no more influence over events on screen than they would have had while watching Brad Pitt in a movie (a movie, which tests acting skills).

I was joking about the picture lol but I’d hardly say there are lots of pictures of her, especially at the time of your posting.

Thanks for that. I have the Bon Iver album but haven’t been as enamoured of it as many others (inc you) – it seemed to make most albums of year lists last year. Then again I haven’t listened to it enough to really get into it.

I’ll admit though that the Fleet Foxes/Bon Iver ‘alt folk’ thing is pretty far away from my usual fare (my favourite album of 2008 was TV on the Radio’s Dear Science), so I probably need a bit more practice. However, another folkish album which I am enjoying is Glory Hope Mountain by The Acorn, which I heard recommended by Guy Garvey from Elbow.

Essentially a concept album, ‘Glory Hope Mountain’ tells the remarkable story of vocalist Ralf Klausener’s Honduran mother (the title of the album is a rough translation of her name) as she copes with natural disasters and national upheaval.

Makes it sound a bit precious but it’s well worth a listen.

But all this is very off topic!

PS – I looked up Gentle Giant on Amazon after Gamma Goblin’s comment and thought, ‘Blimey, the albums look like 70s prog rock!’ Which, it turns out, is exactly what they are.

I know what you mean about BI, I like it, but I can’t listen to it too much. I think I’m in the minority in not really liking TVOTR, although Dear Science is their best album to date.
The Acorn is lovely – our Leigh is a big fan and only mentioned this week that there’s a Dublin date on the horizon (they’re currently on tour with Fleet Foxes, as it happens).

Ah bollocks, you know all my recommendations already. Er… (scans his iTunes frantically) Amadou and Mariam’s Welcome to Mali? That’s a good one. Or Merriweather Post Pavilion by Animal Collective, which everyone’s been raving about but I don’t really get. That’s me all out of albums I thought not everyone would have heard of…

Wow, Fleet Foxes and the Acorn on the same bill! 8) Now that I’d pay to see!

I think a woman should be more powerful than a man. Then there would be less wars. women neogatiate and are more peaceful than men- they’ve got less testosterone. So why shouldn’t a woman get into the intellectual arean and level out the testosterone in there with their sense of peace? Each to their own. Woman should have the freedom to decide what to do for themselves. Winthout men and other women pressurizing them.

The only reason why other women tear a cleve women down is because they are afraid. They are afraid she will use that intelligence to satisfy herself only and that she will think she is bettter than them. Same with men. Stuff this gender bit, women hate other women for a lot of the same reasons that men do.

So I say be kind to her. Then her intelligence and her will be kind to you. It is in your interest as a man, to be kind and equal to a woman. Then she is more free to be kind and equal to you.

“I think a woman should be more powerful than a man. Then there would be less wars. women neogatiate and are more peaceful than men”

We did that once, It’s known as the reign of Margret Thatcher; a woman reknown for being a warmonger. Stating spontaneous anecdotes reduces your credibility, as I am indeed singling your answer out for its vulnerable stupidity.

“Woman should have the freedom to decide what to do for themselves. Winthout men and other women pressurizing them.”

So you’re just misanthropic in general?

“The only reason why other women tear a cleve women down is because they are afraid. They are afraid she will use that intelligence to satisfy herself only and that she will think she is bettter than them.”

Yes, this terrifies all men. A woman that uses her intelligence to satisfy herself… why that would be… disastrous.

“So I say be kind to her. Then her intelligence and her will be kind to you.”

Hopefully, ‘her and her’ intelligence and I and I intelligence can coexist in thatcherite heaven.

Since when did feminism ‘devolve’ into misanthropy and blatant ignorance?

Some of the posters before me are correct, the fact that Oxford colleges are individually represented is bias ordained b*******.

“Most women would prefer a guy who is smarter (or stronger, or more successful, or has more ’status’, or taller, or older) than themselves. As a result, a man who comes across a women who is more intelligent, will automatically feel his very sexuality and ability to attract women, is being threatened”

I’m at Oxford, 21 and my boyfriend is 17 and isn’t even continuing education! I prefer my guys like this, as do other women I know. Don’t tar us all with the same dude ev psych brush!

Intelligence *is* attractive, to people who are intelligent. Gail’s detractors are jealous of her success, but I suspect you’ll find they come almost exclusively from the Eastenders and Big Brother-watching masses who feel threatened by anyone who knows more than they do.

Intelligence aside Gail is good-looking, and her intelligence enhances her attractiveness. She should be proud of her achievements, ignore the nay-sayers, and I hope that she becomes a role-model for young girls who will seek to emulate her success. Well done Gail, and I wish you the very best for the future.

Mr Flyte, I’m male. I’m attracted to women who are smarter and more attractive than I am, though given that I’m very smart and moderately attractive myself that somewhat limits my pool. Most of the men that I know, including all of the happily married ones, share this sentiment. These things aren’t universals, and you’re just a cock.

Dr Oxford, I object to the assertion that the humanities and classics aren’t ‘hard’ subjects. Hard by what definition? If you’re dogmatically excluding anything that has to do with humans rather than the natural world from your oh-so-exacting standards of worthy subjects, I doubt that a woman like Miss Trimble would be interested in you anyway. And honestly, there’s a reason for that. Right, now I’m off to continue my analysis of ‘The Makioka Sisters’.

If only University Challenge was a radio show, there would be no comments about Gail’s looks. However, it was on TV…a visual medium…so looks creep into the discussions naturally. I don’t think it is sexist to mention Gail’s looks…if she were a man you would have got comments: If he wore glasses, like Gail, then there would be stuff about “Geek chic”. If he was sporty looking it would be “beefcake” or “hunk” in the press and if he were fat it would be “Mr Lardy Dah”. If I weren’t married to my own Gail Trimble, I’d apply to Oxford to do a PhD just to try and meet her but enough about my fantasies which I will never act on.

Victor Emmanuel III…them’s fightin’ words. If you don’t like the Queen, there are daily flights out of the UK.

And as for Vorderman…she’s yesterday. It’s Rachel Riley (another brainy girl who people obsess about her looks) these days.

No….we need more Gails in British society. We have to fight back the rise of the galactically stupid in the media and the pseudo-intellectuals that litter the newspapers and discussion shows.

In personal experience, treating women equally has got me far. They feel more free to express themselves and be who they are without discrimination. Sexism is like racism- they are the same thing no matter what biological reasons they are for its existance.

I’m not misanthropist, on the contrary I’m for humans sharing the best of themselves with each and how can they when one gender’s contributions no matter how unconventional are laughed at at or hated?

Here is a discussion between Razib Khan and Gregory Cochran about evolutionary biology this week on bloggingheadsgtv, and the recent evidence that evolution has sped up over the last 10,000 years. This conflicts with the standard idea that we have pleistocene genes selected for 50,000 years ago. Farming changed our genes – we already know that 10,000 years ago evolution began to select for humans who could consume milk among the cauasoid racial groups, and it is likely that other things were changed by farming too.

So much for Gail Trimble. Corpus Christi have been stripped of the title and the trophy given to Manchester. One of their team members in the final was no longer a student at time which obviously breaks one of the rules of the show. So what do you think of that then? :-\ And it probably only came to light because of all the interest generated by Gail Trimble.

It’s a bit odd. As Paxman says, rules are rules, but I don’t see what Corpus Christi were supposed to do when the member in question ceased to be a student by the time of the final. Were they supposed to play with three members only? He was a student when they filmed the earlier heats, and he only dropped out because he couldn’t get funding for his PhD, which presumably he didn’t foresee being a problem. It’s all rather unfortunate.

I watched the final again just now. The camera zooms in and he says “Hi, I’m Sam Kay, I’m from Frimley in Surrey and I’m studying chemistry”….

“Studying” hmmmmm… that was a patent lie then. I was under the impression that team members on University Challenge can change from round to round. In Corpus Christi’s opening game, Schwatrtzman was nowhere to be seen and in her place was a guy called Mark Hamid. So it begs the question, why didn’t they replace Sam Kay; surely they were aware of his situation.

He was very good though, answering a crucial question near the end which turned the game around in Christi’s favor.